From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: EasyPG API and usage questions Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:24:52 -0600 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <86k5kh87fv.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87d4qiaj3j.fsf@broken.deisui.org> <87skzdi3pw.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <871w6w1k38.fsf@broken.deisui.org> <8663w7hg1o.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <54a15d860802291623m3c9844d1k80515e661f435179@mail.gmail.com> <86bq5vd0gk.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wsojngp6.fsf@broken.deisui.org> <867igiblec.fsf@jumptrading.com> <87d4q9my3h.fsf@broken.deisui.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204734208 14708 80.91.229.12 (5 Mar 2008 16:23:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:23:28 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 05 17:23:55 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JWwOw-0002eG-1z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:23:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JWwOO-0002fS-KY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:22:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JWwOK-0002f9-40 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:22:52 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JWwOI-0002ep-NR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:22:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JWwOI-0002em-H8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:22:50 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JWwOI-00064X-0b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:22:50 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JWwOE-0007Bd-4P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:22:46 +0000 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:22:46 +0000 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:22:46 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 38 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:VzlbE79pTC3ZAbbqGToVbM/6vlk= X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:91393 Archived-At: On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:25:22 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote: >>>>>> In <867igiblec.fsf@jumptrading.com> >>>>>> Ted Zlatanov wrote: DU> I think that it would not be too late to implement these features until DU> someone else really wants them. The former is not even provided by DU> GPGME, GPA, etc., >> I don't think that just because a feature has not been done means it's >> not useful. I gave specific examples: I'd like to encrypt a Maildir >> spool, and don't want to burn the CPU cycles necessary to use the >> default cipher on it. On the other hand, I want a good cipher (better >> than the default if possible) applied to my passwords file. If you >> think those examples are only useful to me, I'll set up my own functions >> to do it. I think other users would like that kind of flexibility. DU> Well, please don't make a hypothesis. Do you really see any performance DU> issues in your use cases? Do you really see significant relevance DU> between speed and strength of ciphers which GnuPG supports? DU> I tried each cipher to encrypt 46MiB linux-2.6.24.tar.bz2, and got the DU> following result: 3DES 4.201s, CAST5 1.558s, BLOWFISH 2.628s, AES DU> 1.901s, AES192 1.988, AES256 2.108s, and TWOFISH 2.029s. Here the DU> fastest algorithm is CAST5 (128bit key), and the longest key length DU> algorithm is AES256. The time difference of them are only 0.55s (1/4 of DU> AES256's). The difference will decrease if the inputs are relatively DU> small files in mail spools. Right, because of startup costs. Incidentally, is there a way to reduce those by keeping GPG running continuously? I couldn't find it in the manual, but it will probably make a much bigger difference than the cipher type. I agree the difference is small, but it's measurable. If you think it's not useful to implement this, then let's drop the suggestion as we did the other one (selective enabling of epa-file). Ted